think the most obvious driver of using simulation is to cut down on testing cost and tend to find that know traditional routes for design methodology was to generate something manufactured part, test it, and then you have to go back to the to the drawing board, as it were. Whereas using simulation you've got a faster, you know, approaches to modeling, modifying methods and, and running rerunning simulations. You can also run multiple at once, which helps really cut down, you know. Kind of you can explore multiple avenues very quickly, but the whole design cycle without having to, you know, physically go and make it with any kind of lead times on any physical parts you want making. I guess that's where that kind of the optimized engineering design and optimization led design approach comes into it as well, because you've got so many more avenues, like you say, lower. So you can go down this, you can you can investigate a much broader scope of potential solutions without the time and cost that would traditionally be associated with multiple prototypes or lead times manufacturing. Like you say, if you get that simulation aspect into a project much earlier into a lifecycle much earlier, then you're much more likely to arrive at an optimal solution. So, you know. I guess, yeah, I guess it's mainly a cost saving measure in a sense, isn't it? You're trying to represent the real world and then there's also an aspect of you can also do it in a validated sense as well. So some people, if they've already got a benchmark result in mind, if they make a small modification to that, you can just do it from a pure simulation sense and then it can be certified in that way without the need for them to have to go down the physical route as well. So this aspect of it as well. So yeah, we see that quite a lot in terms of, you know, you, you call it simulation and then there's a manufacturing defect or something happens in service that wasn't planned and you can just rerun the simulation to validate that it's still going to be fine and you're not going to develop any long term fatigue issues or anything like. I guess the other scenario as well is, is when testing, is it feasible that there are there are plenty of scenarios where you physically can't test something quickly or reliably or generate dangerous interest. Exactly. Yeah. some of the kind of the aerospace solutions and that sort of thing is not really feasible to crush something or send something up into into high altitude. So that's where the simulation comes into it. Content design ready. So as you are saying, some of our customers are allowing their designs to go through approval bodies without the need of testing. Nowadays there's so much confidence in in good fee models providing you can give validation for material models and things. Another reason, I guess thinking of vision assessment as an example is that we've found a way to use simulation tools as a repeatable approach where traditionally there wasn't wasn't any numeric method of solving a problem. So we had two is a generate a methodology in which that we we could repeat a process several times, giving us a repeatable answer that we can then use and we have used across multiple different projects now. Give you a good baseline comparator that you can use to compare different things and you wouldn't have otherwise. Yeah, I think those comparisons and sensitivity studies, kind of like you said, with the manufacturing defects and that sort of thing, being able to make small changes that either would require a large number of samples for testing or long lead times, but being able to do a quick sensitivity check on, okay, what happens if I do have a slight defect in this part? Can it still go out? Or what happens if I do have a manufacturing tolerance that I can't take into account or I can't improve if it's slightly bigger, slightly smaller, is that going to impact actually the performance of the product. the end of the day, simulations about achieving what the customer wants their part to do in a cost effective manner.